Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Overpleaded Opposition Supports DJ Motion
Can a Notice of Opposition in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ('PTO') Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ('TTAB') give rise to an actual controversy under the Declaratory Judgment Act to support a trademark Applicant's federal declaratory judgment ('DJ') action against the Opposer? Generally, it can't ' or more accurately, it doesn't. But in Neilmed Products, Inc. v. Med-Systems, Inc., No. C 06-00964 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2007), the Northern District of California found that the Notice of Opposition pleaded detailed factors relevant to liability for trademark infringement and dilution. This enthusiastic overpleading did far more than state a claim as to why the applicant's mark should not be allowed to register, which is the TTAB's sole jurisdiction. It gave Applicant a reasonable basis to believe Opposer would sue it for infringement, thereby providing the jurisdictional basis for a DJ action.
The Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. '2201 permits a federal court to 'declare the rights and other legal relations' of parties to 'a case of actual controversy.' An actual controversy has been viewed as requiring the DJ plaintiff to have a reasonable apprehension that it will be subject to liability.
This case came down only one day after No. 05-608 Medimmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. __ (2007). There, the Supreme Court suggested that the seemingly settled 'reasonable apprehension of suit' test, which has long governed when DJ actions should be permitted, is irreconcilable with Supreme Court authority. Id. at n.11. While the Court in Neilmed did not have the benefit of the Medimmune authority, its opinion would, if anything, have been bolstered by the position expressed in Medimmune's footnote 11.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.